Starks v. Tula Life, Inc.

684 F.Supp.3d 941

Katie STARKS, Plaintiff, v. TULA LIFE, INC., Defendant.

8:23-CV-4

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Signed July 26, 2023

Roger I. Roots, Livingston, MT, for Plaintiff.

Daniel E. Cummings, Shook, Hardy Law Firm, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Katie Starks has sued TULA Life, Inc., (TULA) for defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Filing 1. This matter is before the Court on TULA's Motion to Dismiss. Filing 6. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants TULA's Motion.¹

II. BACKGROUND

Katie Starks, an Omaha resident, is a health, beauty, and lifestyle blogger who promoted beauty products on her website and Instagram profile. Filing 1 at 1, 3. Prior to January of 2022, Starks promoted skincare products from TULA, a New York skincare company, pursuant to an influencer agreement with TULA. Filing 1 at 8; Filing 6-1.² The influencer agreement gave TULA the broad right to immediately terminate the agreement if Starks became "involved in or the subject of adverse publicity" or if Starks "engage[d] in conduct that would" (1) "disparage, denigrate, [or] portray in an unfavorable light [Starks or TULA]," (2) bring Starks, TULA, or TULA's products "into public disrepute, contempt or scandal," or (3) "injure the success of [TULA or TULA's products]." Filing 6-1 at 7.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, Starks took to social media to express her disagreement with Omaha's mask mandate policy for schools. Filing 1 at 3-6. According to the Complaint, on one of Stark's videos criticizing mask mandates, people left comments comparing wearing masks to the Holocaust. Filing 1 at 7, 28. Starks alleges that she has never made such a comparison or implied that she held this view. Filing 1 at 7.

Shortly after posting the video on her Facebook profile, in mid-January of 2022, companies began contacting Starks and severing ties with her. Filing 1 at 7. On January 14, 2022, a TULA representative contacted Starks by email to terminate the influencer agreement with her. Filing 1 at 8, 33. The representative explained that Starks had "engaged in conduct that would disparage, denigrate, or portray an unfavorable light on the TULA brand across [Starks's] Instagram page and Facebook page." Filing 1 at 33. The Complaint suggests that TULA allegedly terminated the influencer agreement by misattributing the comments comparing mask mandates with the Holocaust to Starks. Filing 1 at 9, 13.

Starks alleges that, when customers began contacting TULA to express disappointment with TULA ending its relationship with Starks, TULA would respond with the following message:

At TULA, we have zero tolerance for racism or hate within our community & regularly reevaluate our brand partnerships to ensure all our partners are aligned with our values. We have publicly committed ourselves as an ally to underrepresented communities & take this commitment seriously.

As a brand, we do not "talk politics" on our social media or anywhere else, and we would not part ways with a partner solely due to their political stance out of respect for a range of political beliefs. However, when it comes to human rights, TULA is actively anti-racist & confidently speaks out against injustice.

Filing 1 at 8, 40. On January 29, 2022, TULA posted a similar statement on its Instagram page:

As a brand, we would not part ways with a partner solely due to their political stance, out of respect for a range of political beliefs. However, when it comes to human rights, TULA is actively anti-racist & confidently speaks out against injustice.

We, as a team and a brand, have zero tolerance for racism or hate within our community. We have publicly committed ourselves as an ally to underrepresented communities & take this commitment seriously.

Filing 1 at 9, 38. Starks characterizes these messages as labeling her "a racist" and implying that she made "hateful and racist remarks." Filing 1 at 10, 12. According to Starks, because of TULA's statements, she has suffered emotional harm and a loss of income. Filing 1 at 12.

On January 5, 2023, Starks sued TULA in this Court. Filing 1. In her Complaint, Starks brings claims for defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Filing 1 at 12-17. TULA filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 29, 2023. Filing 6.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Standards

TULA moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When faced with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court evaluates whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Edwards v. City of Florissant, Missouri, 58 F.4th 372, 376 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). Plausibility means that the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court " 'to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.' " Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937). Threadbare recitals of elements, conclusory statements, and "factual allegations lacking enough specificity to raise a right to relief above the speculative level are insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable." Richardson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2 F.4th 1063, 1068 (8th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). When a complaint "pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility." Christopherson, 33 F.4th at 499. In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must "accept 'the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.' " Bauer v. AGA Serv. Co., 25 F.4th 587, 589 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Pietoso, Inc. v. Republic Servs., Inc., 4 F.4th 620, 622 (8th Cir. 2021)).

B. Defamation

Starks predicates her defamation claim on the two statements TULA made after terminating the influencer agreement with her. Filing 1 at 12-13. According to Starks, TULA's statements "referred to [her] as a racist" and implied that "Starks made hateful and racist remarks." Filing 1 at 12-13. TULA counters that the statements are not actionable because whether someone is "racist" or "hateful" is not a provably false statement of fact. Filing 6 at 9. TULA also points out that the two statements on which Starks bases her claim do not expressly refer to Starks at all. Filing 6 at 11-12.

Both parties state that Nebraska law governs Starks's claims, and the Court agrees. See Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main St. Ingredients, LLC, 745 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2014) (assuming that Minnesota law applied when neither party disputed that it did); Bath Junkie Branson, L.L.C. v. Bath Junkie, Inc., 528 F.3d 556, 561 (8th Cir. 2008) ("Both parties rely on Missouri law, and consequently we assume that Missouri law controls.").

Stated in general terms, defamation of a nonpublic figure³ occurs when the defendant negligently makes a false statement about the plaintiff to a third party that harms the plaintiff's reputation. See JB & Assocs., Inc. v. Nebraska Cancer Coal., 303 Neb. 855, 932 N.W.2d 71, 78 (2019) (listing the elements for defamation). Under Nebraska law, a court must first determine as a matter of law "whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion." Choice Homes, LLC v. Donner, 311 Neb. 835, 976 N.W.2d 187, 203 (2022). If not, the First Amendment bars liability. See K Corp. v. Stewart, 247 Neb. 290, 526 N.W.2d 429, 435 (1995) ("[S]tatements which cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts are entitled to First Amendment protection."). In other words, "[O]bjective expressions of verifiable facts" are actionable, while "subjective impressions" are not. See Choice Homes, 976 N.W.2d at 203 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The line between an actionable factual assertion and a protected opinion can be elusive. Thus, the Nebraska Supreme Court adheres to a "totality of the circumstances" test to determine if a statement is actionable, with a particular emphasis on the context in which the defendant makes the statement and the language used. Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Nebraska, Inc., 289 Neb. 927, 857 N.W.2d 816, 828 (2015). "Relevant factors include (1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant asserted an objective fact, (2) whether the defendant used figurative or hyperbolic language, and (3) whether the statement is susceptible of being proved true or false." Choice Homes, 976 N.W.2d at 203-04. "[T]he knowledge, understanding, and reasonable expectations of the audience to whom the communication was directed," along with "the broader setting in which the statement appears," are also appropriate considerations. Id. at 204.

In her Complaint, Starks alleges that TULA's statements defamed her because they "referred to [her] as a racist" and implied that "Starks made hateful and racist remarks." Filing 1 at 12-13. The Court will assume without deciding that a reasonable reader could conclude TULA's statements imply that Starks is a racist and that she made hateful and racist remarks. Whether these statements imply a "provably false factual assertion" about Starks is dispositive of her claim. See Choice Homes, 976 N.W.2d at 203. How the Nebraska Supreme Court approaches this issue serves as a useful guide.

In K Corporation v. Stewart, the Nebraska Supreme Court examined whether a letter the defendant wrote about the conditions at the plaintiff's recreational facility contained actionable defamatory statements....